A Report from the League of Women Voters of Ohio Comparing 2011 Gerrymandering to the 2012, 2014, and 2016 Election Results

 Were Ohio’s U.S. congressional and state General Assembly districts drawn to favor one political party over the other?

 Did the political index1 of each district so heavily favor one party that it was virtually guaranteed to win that seat?

 Did Ohio have any competitive districts that did not strongly favor one party over another?

 Did any candidates win despite their district being drawn to favor the opposing party?

 Did the total number of votes each party received statewide match the number of district seats they won?

 The League of Women Voters examined these questions after the general election in 2012 and reexamined them in light of the 20142 and 2016 election results.

1 “Political index” is a term that describes the number of voters favoring each political party within a district based on voting history in recent elections. 2“Predictable Results 2012” and “Predictable Results 2014” are available online at https://my.lwv.org/ohio/publications 1

Ohio’s current legislative districts were drawn in 2011. The Ohio General Assembly redrew district boundary lines for Ohio’s U.S. congressional districts, and the Ohio Apportionment Board3 redrew district boundary lines for Ohio’s state General Assembly districts. There are three major criticisms of the final maps.

• Each district was drawn to favor either the majority Republican Party or the minority Democratic Party, and the makeup of the new districts essentially determined the outcome of the election. • The districts were drawn to disproportionately favor the political party that controlled the redistricting process. • Districts were not compact and instead twisted over a wide geographic area. A visual inspection of the maps bears this out.

All three criticisms are the natural outcomes of Ohio’s current map drawing process, which grants broad discretion to members of the majority political party to fashion districts favorable to its interests.

ANALYSIS OF DISTRICTS OHIO’S U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

The chart below compares the projected partisan index4 of each congressional district and the percentage of official votes cast in 2012, 2014, and 2016 for the Republican and Democratic candidates. Those districts that favor Republicans and a Republican won the seat are shaded red, and those districts that favor Democrats and a Democrat won the seat are blue. Eight of the 2012 U.S. House races, nine of the 2014 races, and seven of the 2016 races had third party or write-in candidates, so the totals may not add up to 100%.

3 The Ohio Apportionment Board is defined in Article 11, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution. It is a five- member board made up of the governor, auditor of state, secretary of state, and one member of the General Assembly of each major political party. The constitution charges the Apportionment Board with drawing districts for the state legislature. In the 2011 redistricting process, four of the five members were of the Appointment Board Republican and one was a Democrat. 4 The Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting provided the projections based on a partisan index using the results from the following statewide races: 2008- President, 2010- Governor, Auditor, and Secretary of State. The election results are available from the Ohio Secretary of State at www.sos.state.oh.us. 2

U.S. House Races District PROJECTED % 2012 RESULTS 2014 RESULTS No. 2016 RESULTS % R % D % R % D % R % D % R % D 57.73% 37.60% 63.22% 36.78% 59.19% 40.77% 1 55.92% 44.08% (Chabot) (Sinnard) (Chabot) (Kundrata) (Chabot) (Young) 58.63% 41.37% 65.96% 34.04% 65% 32.82% 2 57.02% 42.98% (Wenstrup) (Smith) (Weinstrup) (Tyszkiewicz) (Wenstrup) (Smith) 26.35% 68.29% 35.93% 64.06% 31.43% 68.57% 3 35.73% 64.27% (Long) (Beatty) (Adams) (Beatty) (Adams) (Beatty) 58.35% 36.49% 67.67% 32.33% 67.99% 32.01% 4 59.61% 40.39% (Jordan) (Slone) (Jordan) (Garrett) (Jordan) (Garrett) 57.27% 39.16% 66.46% 28.92% 70.90% 29.10% 5 57.52% 42.48% (Latta) (Zimmann) (Latta) (Fry) (Latta) (Neu) 53.25% 46.75% 58.23% 38.58% 70.68% 29.32% 6 53.86% 46.14% (Johnson) (Wilson) (Johnson) (Garrison) (Johnson) (Lorentz) 56.40% 43.60% 100% 0% 64.03% 28.96% 7 56.23% 43.77% (Gibbs) (Healy-Abrams) (Gibbs) (no cand.) (Gibbs) (Rich) 99.97% 0% 67.19% 27.36% 68.76% 26.97% 8 64.30% 35.70% (Boehner) (no cand.) (Boehner) (Poetter) (Davidson) (Fought) 23.03% 73.04% 32.17% 67.74% 31.31% 68.69% 9 36.38% 63.62% (Wurzelbacher) (Kaptur) (May) (Kaptur) (Larson) (Kaptur) 59.54% 37.49% 65.18% 31.53% 64.09% 32.67% 10 54.14% 45.82% (Turner) (Neuhardt) (Turner) (Klepinger) (Turner) (Klepinger) 0% 100% 20.55% 79.45% 19.75% 80.25% 11 20.33% 79.67% (no cand.) (Fudge) (Zetzer) (Fudge) (Goldstein) (Fudge) 63.47% 36.53% 68.11% 27.75% 66.55% 29.84% 12 59.42% 40.58% (Tiberi) (Reese) (Tiberi) (Tibbs) (Tiberi) (Albertson) 27.23% 72.77% 31.46% 68.49% 32.26% 67.73% 13 37.70% 62.30% (Agana) (Ryan) (Pekarek) (Ryan) (Morckel) (Ryan) 54.04% 38.73% 63.26% 33.02% 62.58% 37.37% 14 54.36% 45.64% (Joyce) (Blanchard) (Joyce) (Wager) (Joyce) (Wagner) 61.56% 38.44% 66.02% 33.98% 66.16% 33.84% 15 56.46% 43.54% (Stivers) (Lang) (Stivers) (Wharton) (Stivers) (Wharton) 52.05% 47.95% 63.74% 36.26% 65.33% 34.67% 16 56.62% 43.38% (Renacci) (Sutton) (Renacci) (Crossland) (Renacci) (Mundy)

Partisan indexes perfectly predicted the party of the winner in ALL of the congressional districts in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Districts tilted heavily toward one party or the other tend to deter opposition. In 2012 two candidates were unopposed, and in 2014 one candidate was unopposed. No candidates were unopposed in 2016.

The table below compares the total votes for the two major parties with the seats each won. In 2016, Republicans candidates for Congress received 3,101,556 (60%) of the total votes statewide for major party candidates, and the Democrats received 2,048,984 (40%) of the total major party candidate votes statewide, while the parties won 75% and 25% of congressional seats, respectively. The difference between the percentage of seats and percentage of votes -- 15% -- represents a high level of disproportionality in the level of representation versus the overall strength of candidates with the statewide electorate. By comparison, in 2012, 51% of the votes went to the Republican candidates with the same result – 75% of the seats. In 2014, 57% of the votes again yielded 75% of the seats. The disproportionality is slightly less in 2016 than past years, but is still quite large.

2016 REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS

# OF VOTES 3,101,556 2,048,984

% OF VOTES 60% 40%

# OF SEATS 12 4

% OF SEATS 75% 25%

2016 U.S. House Republican 2016 U.S. House Republican vs Democratic Votes vs Democratic Seats

U.S. House Democrats U.S. House 4 Democrats U.S. House 40% Republicans U.S. House 60% Republicans 12

Ohio House of Representatives

The partisan district index correctly projected winners in 95 of the 99 Ohio House races in 2016. The chart below compares the partisan index of each House district and the percentage of votes for each candidate. Those districts that favor Republican and where a Republican won the seat are shaded red, and those districts that favor Democrats and where a Democrat won the seat, are blue. The four seats in which the political composition of the district and the political party of the winner are different are highlighted in yellow.

Ohio House Races PROJECTED 5 2012 RESULTS 2014 RESULTS 2016 RESULTS District % R % D % R % D % R % D % R % D No. 65.89% 34.11% 100% 0% 67.35% 0% (no 1 62.17% 37.83% (Amstutz) (Maglio) (Amstutz) (no cand.) (Wiggam) cand. ****) 57.23% 42.77% 69.89% 30.11% 69.68% 30.28% 2 59.55% 40.45% (Romanchuck) (Haring) (Romanchuk) (Bryant) (Romanchuk) (Bowman) 51.39% 43.98% 62.76% 31.33% 58.75% 41.25% 3 51.30% 48.70% (Brown) (Wicks) (Brown) (Long) (Gavarone) (Wicks) 66.65% 33.35% 26.14% 100% 0% 4 64.33% 35.67% 73.86% (Cupp) (Huffman) (Huenke) (Huenke) (Cupp) (no cand.) 49.43% 50.57% 59.54% 40.46% 71.11% 28.89% 5 54.72% 45.28% (Newbold) (Barborak) (Ginter) (Barborak) (Ginter) (Dyce) 55.43% 44.57% 58.57% 41.43% 61.09% 38.91% 6 53.78% 46.22% (Anielski) (Fossaceca) (Anielski) (Fossaceca) (Anielski) (Robinson) 50.11% 49.89% 100% 0% 7 54.93% 45.07% 100% (Dovilla) 0% (no cand.) (Dovilla) (Patten) (Patton) (no cand.) 17.17% 82.83% 18.29% 71.59% 20.19% 79.81% 8 22.03% 77.97% (Hocevar) (Budish) (Alterman) (Smith) (McDonald) (Smith) 0% 100% 15.22% 15.57% 84.43% 9 16.20% 83.80% 84.78% (Boyd) (no cand.) (Boyd) (Hopson) (Miller) (Boyd) 0% 100% 0% 81.99% 0% 100% 10 12.83% 87.17% (no cand.) (Patmon) (no cand.***) (Patmon) (no cand.) (Patmon) 0% 100% 0% 100% 14.28% 85.72% 11 15.36% 84.64% (no cand.) (Williams) (no cand.) (Howse) (Taylor) (Howse) 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 12 18.08% 81.92% 100% (Barnes) (no cand.) (Barnes) (no cand.) (no cand.) (Barnes) 24.14% 75.86% 28.04% 71.96% 0% 100% 13 29.16% 70.84% (Zappala) (Antonio) (Anderson) (Antonio) (no cand.) (Antonio) 30.83% 69.17% 37.57% 62.43% 0% 100% 14 41.24% 58.76% (Cyngier) (Foley) (Melendez) (Sweeney) (no cand.) (Sweeney)

5 The Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting provided the projections based on a partisan index using the results from the following statewide races: 2008-President; 2010-Governor, Auditor, and Secretary of State. The election results are available from the Ohio Secretary of State at www.sos.state.oh.us. 5

43.23% 36.31% 63.68% 56.77% 0% 15 44.86% 55.14% (Gascoyne- 100% (Gascoyne) (Celebrezze) (Celebrezze) (no cand.) Telischak) (Celebrezze) 58.12% 41.88% 62.21% 37.79% 56.31% 43.69% 16 54.53% 45.47% (Baker) (Meyer) (Baker) (LeVeck) (Greenspan) (Greene) 37.38% 62.62% 44.61% 55.39% 45.57% 45.57% 17 44.53% 55.47% (Szabo) (Curtin) (Newbern) (Curtin) (Rush) (Miller) 26.66% 73.34% 25.54% 74.46% 65.30% 18 29.71% 70.29% 27.81% (Todd) (Colgan) (Stinziano) (Sharrah) (Stinziano) (Boggs) 56.38% 43.62% 59.11% 32.58% 57.90% 42.10% 19 55.99% 44.01% (Gonzales) (Jolley) (Gonzales) (Johnston) (Gonzales) (Johnston) 40.72% 59.28% 42.84% 57.16% 46.33% 53.67% 20 49.11% 50.89% (Burd) (Bishoff) (Mefford) (Bishoff) (Schacht) (Bishoff) 52.01% 47.99% 62.37% 34.76% 59.17% 40.83% 21 56.37% 43.63% (Duffey) (O'Connor) (Duffey) (Valasco) (Duffey) (Koch) 31.79% 68.21% 37.94% 62.06% 32.06% 67.94% 22 40.09% 59.91% (Hall) (Carney) (Hall) (Leland) (Jarrett) (Leland) 55.65% 44.35% 63.81% 36.19% 57.65% 42.35% 23 56.86% 43.14% (Grossman) (Johnson) (Grossman) (Redfern) (Lanese) (Schreiner) 51.86% 48% 57.24% 37.68% 60.59% 39.41% 24 55.66% 44.34% (Kunze) (Reedy) (Kunze) (Hoff) (Hughes) (Keller) 13.88% 86.12% 18.22% 81.78% 14.86% 70.79% 25 17.99% 82.01% (Golding) (Boyce) (Golding) (Boyce) (Golding) (Kent) 17.09% 82.91% 75.80% 20.39% 79.61% 26 22.26% 77.74% 24.20% (Pyles) (Healy) (Heard) (Craig) (Collins) (Craig) 66.79% 33.21% 67.67% 32.33% 64.37% 35.63% 27 62.95% 37.05% (Stautberg) (Wissman) (Brinkman) (Otis) (Brinkman) (Otis) 43.58% 51.99% 55.68% 44.32% 57.38% 42.62% 28 54.04% 45.96% (Wilson) (PillIch) (Dever) (Kamrass) (Dever) (Miranda) 61.27% 38.73% 67.34% 28.73% 100% 0% 29 65.17% 34.83% (Blessing) (Brown) (Blessing) (Simendinger) (Blessing) (no cand.) 69.17% 30.83% 74.07% 25.93% 73.11% 26.89% 30 70.39% 29.61% (Terhar) (Newsome) (Tehar) (Childers) (Seitz) (Childers) 28.6% 71.4% 31.08% 65.65% 31.94% 68.06% 31 31.26% 68.74% (Gabbard) (Driehaus) (Yeager) (Driehaus) (Yeager) (Kelly) 22.95% 77.05% 29.18% 70.82% 23.12% 76.88% 32 26.21% 73.79% (Mosby) (Mallory) (McIntosh) (Bryant) (Wahlert) (Ingram) 26.15% 73.85% 0% 100% 26.46% 73.54% 33 27.63% 72.37% (Bryan) (Reece) (no cand.) (Reece) (Miller) (Reece) 18.61% 81.39% 28.09% 71.91% 22.86% 77.14% 34 24.91% 75.09% (Habash) (Sykes) (Blake) (Sykes) (Littlefield) (Sykes) 28.39% 71.61% 37.94% 62.06% 37.50% 62.50% 35 37.85% 62.15% (Mitchell) (Milkovich) (Robinson) (Johnson) (Cooper) (Johnson) 52.52% 47.48% 59.71% 40.29% 63.52% 36.48% 36 50.54% 49.46% (DeVitis) (Colavecchio) (DeVitis) (Prentice) (DeVitis) (McDowall) 53.98% 46.02% 58.48% 41.52% 57.10% 42.90% 37 53.88% 46.12% (Roegner) (Schmida) (Roegner) (Worhatch) (Roegner) (Weinstein) 54.32% 45.68% 40.42% 36.89% 38 55.35% 44.65% 59.58% (Slaby) 63.11% (Slaby) (Slaby) (Kaplan) (Crawford) (Lee) 17.01% 82.99% 18.41% 77.35% 0% 100% 39 18.97% 81.03% (Wellbaum) (Strahorn) (Dalton) (Strahorn) (no cand.) (Strahorn) 6

54.41% 45.59% 65.41% 34.59% 64.12% 35.88% 40 59.92% 40.08% (Henne) (Fisher) (Henne) (Richards) (Henne) (Richards) 59.55% 40.45% 67.90% 63.15% 36.85% 41 60.01% 39.99% 32.10% (Small) (Butler) (Gentry) (Butler) (Butler) (Calhoun) 65.18% 34.82% 64.50% 35.50% 63.03% 36.97% 42 64.49% 35.51% (Blair) (Buczkowski) (Antani) (Merris) (Antani) (Merris) 45.94% 54.06% 57.56% 42.44% 59.87% 40.13% 43 49.54% 50.46% (Deitering) (Winburn) (Rezabek) (Winburn) (Rezabak) (Sparks) 0% 100% 81.34% 82.10% 44 18.16% 81.84% 18.66% (Insco) 17.90% (Insco) (no cand.) (Ashford) (Ashford) (Ashford) 0% 100% 36.40% 63.60% 36.68% 63.32% 45 37.21% 62.79% (no cand.) (Fedor) (Nowak) (Fedor) (Nowak) (Fedor) 34.92% 65.08% 42.82% 57.18% 57.77% 46 42.93% 57.07% 42.23% (Skaff) (kissinger) (Szollosi) (Blazsik) (Sheehy) (Sheehy) 60.01% 39.99% 100% 0% 60.85% 39.15% 47 57.66% 42.34% (Sears) (Bunck) (Sears) (no cand.) (Merrin) (Cooper) 57.03% 38.83% 100% 0% 100% 0% 48 54.86% 45.14% (Schuring) (Trump) (Schuring) (no cand.) (Schuring) (no cand.) 29.85% 70.15% 35.97% 64.03% 43.48% 56.52% 49 37.46% 62.54% (Moore) (Slesnick) (Charton) (Slesnick) (McMasters) (West) 59.53% 40.47% 67.55% 32.45% 72.82% 27.18% 50 58.06% 41.94% (Hagan) (Ryan) (Hagan) (Cain) (Hagan) (Juergensen) 56.66% 43.34% 69.31% 30.69% 65.38% 34.62% 51 62.28% 37.72% (Retherford) (Hardig) (Retherford) (Greene) (Retherford) (Hamilton) 66% 27.08% 75.68% 24.32% 0% 52 68.95% 31.05% 100% (Conditt) (Conditt) (Rudie) (Conditt) (Hourani) (no cand.) 60.54% 39.46% 68.37% 31.63% 65.20% 34.80% 53 62.34% 37.66% (Derickson) (Rubin) (Derickson) (Rubin) (Keller) (Rubin) 100% 0% 71.63% 28.37% 68.09% 31.91% 54 68.16% 31.84% (Beck) (no cand.) (Zeltwanger) (Smith) (Zeltwanger) (Smith) 37.07% 62.93% 55.79% 44.21% 60.64% 39.36% 55 48.69% 51.31% (Brady) (Lundy) (Manning) (Mackin) (Manning) (Mencke) 0% 100% 0% 100% 36.21% 63.79% 56 35.81% 64.19% (no cand.) (Ramos) (no cand.) (Ramos) (Tower) (Ramos) 53.92% 40.54% 58.92% 35.77% 38.07% 57 56.88% 43.12% 61.93% (Stein) (Boose) (Lark) (Boose) (Lark) (Dunlap) 59.61% 0% 100% 0% 100% 22.75% 58 22.44% 77.56% (Lepore- (no cand.) (Hagan) (no cand.) (Hagan) (Sanderson) Hagan) 41.33% 58.67% 46.16% 53.84% 41.56% 58.44% 59 46.67% 53.33% (Poma) (Gerberry) (Mitchell) (Gerberry) (Manning) (Boccieri) 44.53% 55.47% 45.58% 54.42% 54.82% 60 49.26% 50.74% 45.18% (Rule) (Dinallo) (Rogers) (Phillips) (Rogers) (Rogers) 54.18% 45.82% 65.22% 34.78% 64.87% 35.13% 61 57.74% 42.26% (Young) (McGuinness) (Young) (Walker) (Young) (Walker) 70.96% 29.04% 71.92% 22.12% 21.40% 62 72.23% 27.77% 78.60% (Lipps) (Maag) (Kassalen) (Maag) (Schneider) (Ronan) 27.54% 72.46% 33.70% 66.30% 40.24% 59.76% 63 37.44% 62.56% (Paridon) (O'Brien) (Stanley) (O'Brien) (Stanley) (Holmes) 39.75% 60.25% 44.77% 49.19% 44.57% 55.43% 64 40.44% 59.56% (Law) (Letson) (Law) (O'Brien) (Yoder) (O'Brien) 7

68.7% 31.3% 75.26% 24.74% 73.22% 26.78% 65 70.18% 29.82% (Becker) (Myers) (Becker) (Carlier) (Becker) (Weber) 72.4% 27.6% 77.34% 22.66% 78.46% 21.54% 66 67.31% 32.69% (Green) (McNeely) (Green) (McNeely) (Green) (McNeely) 62.46% 37.54% 67.94% 32.06% 65.23% 34.77% 67 65.99% 34.01% (Brenner) (Hogan) (Brenner) (Hogan) (Brenner) (Breneman) 67.78% 32.22% 65.93% 25.23% 67.54% 32.47% 68 66.47% 33.53% (Ruhl) (Ryerson) (Ruhl) (Skocic) (Carfagna) (Russell) 60.63% 39.37% 69.35% 30.51% 68.73% 31.27% 69 60.65% 39.35% (Batchelder) (Cross) (Hambley) (Javorek) (Hambley) (Zona) 60.46% 39.54% 68.55% 31.45% 71.82% 0% (no 70 61.45% 38.55% (Hall) (Johnson) (Hall) (Riley) (Kick) cand.*****) 61.56% 38.44% 66.77% 33.23% 67.91% 32.09% 71 60.94% 39.06% (Hottinger) (Jones) (Ryan) (Rader) (Ryan) (Begeny) 57.51% 42.49% 67.86% 32.14% 71.73% 72 58.45% 41.55% 28.27% (Hayes) (Dilly) (Hayes) (Bowman) (Householder) (Carlisle) 63.46% 36.54% 71.26% 28.74% 66.46% 33.54% 73 63.11% 36.89% (Perales) (Conner) (Perales) (Ogan) (Perales) (Housh) 64.76% 35.24% 100% 0% 33.21% 74 63.29% 36.71% 66.79% (Dean) (Hackett) (Key) (Hackett) (no cand.) (Niemeyer) 38.97% 61.03% 44.67% 45.12% 54.88% 75 46.64% 53.36% 55.33% (Clyde) (Skeriotis) (Clyde) (Skeriotis) (Lutz) (Clyde) 57.4% 42.6% 67.73% 32.27% 68.81% 31.19% 76 60.89% 39.11% (Lynch) (Warren) (LaTourette) (Lanese) (LaTourette) (McIntee) 58.25% 41.75% 68.35% 31.65% 68.41% 31.59% 77 61.31% 38.69% (Stebelton) (Bryant) (Schaffer) (Saunders) (Schaffer) (Nicodemus) 57.55% 42.45% 34.08% 0% 78 57.81% 42.19% 65.92% (Hood) 100% (Hood) (Hood) (VanMeter) (Rogers) (no cand.) 55.23% 44.77% 60.73% 39.27% 60.53% 39.47% 79 53.27% 46.73% (McGregor) (Herier) (Koehler) (Jackson) (Koehler) (Wendt) 69.3% 30.7% 77.35% 22.65% 100% 0% 80 69.40% 30.60% (Adams) (Fisher) (Huffman) (Michalski) (Huffman) (no cand.) 67.92% 32.08% 70.42% 29.58% 100% 0% 81 64.09% 35.91% (Watchmann) (Vanover) (McColley) (Lymanstall) (McColley) (no cand.) 59.04% 0% (no Dem. 100% 0% 0% 82 63.88% 36.12% 100% (Riedel) (Burkley) cand. **) (Burkley) (no cand.) (no cand.) 67.32% 32.68% 74.79% 0% 74.75% 25.25% 83 66.64% 33.36% (Sprague) (Kostyo) (Sprague) (no cand.) (Sprague) (Harshfield) 80.86% 19.14% 100% 0% 83.38% 16.62% 84 73.14% 26.86% (Buchy) (Hammons) (Buchy) (no cand.) (Faber) (Huff) 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 85 66.14% 33.86% 100% (Vitale) (Adams) (no cand.) (Vitale) (no cand.) (no cand.) 62.06% 37.94% 72.55% 71.22% 28.78% 86 63.15% 36.85% 27.45% (Babik) (Pelanda) (Johncox) (Pelanda) (Pelanda) (Crider) 66.15% 33.85% 72.75% 27.25% 100% 0% 87 60.50% 39.50% (McClain) (Lehart) (McClain) (Lehart) (Goodman) (no cand.) 55.61% 44.39% 59.01% 40.99% 100% 0% 88 57.37% 42.63% (Damschroder) (Young) (Reineke) (Young) (Reineke) (no cand.) 38.55% 61.45% 48.76% 60.72% 39.28% 89 48.34% 51.66% 51.24% (Kraus) (Janik) (Redfern) (Redfern) (Arndt) (Hartlaub)

61.95% 38.05% 64.02% 100% 0% 90 51.96% 48.04% 35.98% (Davis) (Johnson) (Haas) (Johnson) (Johnson) (no cand.) 61.43% 38.57% 100% 0% 100% 0% 91 61.84% 38.16% (Rosenberger) (Pence) (Rosenberger) (no cand.) (Rosenberger) (no cand.) 52.54% 47.46% 100% 0% 100% 0% 92 57.84% 42.16% (Scherer) (Armstrong) (Scherer) (no cand.) (Scherer) (no cand.) 64.19% 35.81% 70.04% 29.96% 100% 0% 93 57.72% 42.28% (Smith) (Bailey) (Smith) (Bailey) (Smith) (no cand.) 38.63% 61.37% 49.32% 50.68% 57.81% 42.19% 94 44.34% 55.66% (Richter) (Phillips) (Dennis) (Phillips) (Edwards) (Grace) 52.83% 47.17% 56.90% 43.10% 61.93% 38.07% 95 55.60% 44.40% (Thompson) (Daniels) (Thompson) (Daniels) (Thompson) (Favede) 0% 100% 46.11% 53.89% 0% 96 46.82% 53.18% (no cand.) (Cera) (Ferguson) (Cera) (no cand.) 100% (Cera) 60.36% 39.64% 74.72% 100% 0% 97 58.26% 41.74% 25.28% (Roe) (Hill) (Fleischer) (Hill) (Hill) (no cand.) 50.01% 49.99% 67.71% 32.29% 70.86% 29.14% 98 56.04% 43.96% (Landis) (O'Farrell) (Landis) (Johnson) (Landis) (Johnson) 47.02% 52.98% 42.13% 57.87% 0% 100% 99 49.05% 50.95% (Kozlowski) (Patterson) (McArthur) (Patterson) (no cand.) Patterson

* Note that some races had 3rd party or write-in candidates, so the totals for the two major party candidates may not add up to 100%. **In 2012, there was no Democrat candidate in district 82, but there was an Independent candidate who received 40.96% of the vote. *** In 2014, there was no Republican candidate in district 10, but there were three Independent candidates who combined received 18.01% of the vote. ****In 2016 there was no Democratic candidate in district 1, but there was an Independent candidate who received 32.65% of the vote. *****In 2016 there was no Democratic candidate in district 70, but there was an Independent candidate who received 28.18% of the vote.

Only four out of ninety-nine districts -- a mere 4% -- elected a candidate of the party not favored by the political index. In 2012, Democrats won in two districts leaning toward the Republicans (including one district comprised of a single county), and in 2014 Republicans won in three districts leaning toward the Democrats. In each of the four cases in 2016, a Republican won in a district identified as Democratic by the partisan district index. The current majority party – Republican – candidates for the House received 2,836,624 (59%) of the total votes statewide, and the current minority party – Democratic – candidates received 1,961,329 (41%) of the total votes statewide. And yet, the majority party won 66% of the seats. The difference of 7% represents disproportionality in the level of representation versus the overall strength of candidates with the statewide electorate.

2016 House Republican House Democrat

# of Votes 2,836,624 1,961,329

% of Votes 59% 41%

# of Seats 66 33

% of Seats 66.7% 33.3%

2016 Ohio House Republican 2016 Ohio House Republican vs Democratic Votes vs Democratic Seats

Ohio House Ohio House Democrats 33 Democrats 41% Ohio House Republicans Ohio House 59% Republicans 66

African American Legislators and Packing6

Partisan gerrymandering (drawing lines to ensure a particular party wins) and racial gerrymandering (drawing lines to favor or disfavor minority voters’ impact on electing candidates of their choice) often utilize the same tactics.

A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting,7 produced by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, explains:

The basic techniques of creating a partisan gerrymander are cracking, packing, and tacking. The same tactics have been used to dilute the voting strength of minority populations. Cracking is the act of dividing groups of people with the same characteristics – in this case, voters likely to vote for a particular party – into more than one district. With their voting strength divided, the group is more likely to lose elections. Packing is just the opposite – cramming as many people with the same characteristic into as few districts as possible. In these few districts, the “packed” group is more likely to win … but this drains their voting strength elsewhere. Tacking is the process of reaching out from the bulk of a district to grab a distant area with specific desired (usually partisan) demographics. In looking at the Ohio House races, there are several districts that concentrate, or pack, both a majority percentage of African American voters and a high percentage of voters favoring a particular political party.

Thirteen African American legislators were elected to the Ohio House in 2016, 2 more than in 2014. Most of these legislators were elected in majority-minority8 districts with very strong partisan indexes. The two additional seats occupies by African American legislators were in districts with lower percentages of African- American voters, and weaker but still high partisan indexes.

6 “Packing” refers to the practice of concentrating as many minority party voters as possible into a few super- concentrated districts, thus draining the minority party's voting power from anywhere else. 7 A Citizens Guide to Redistricting, Justin Levitt, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law (2010), p.57- 58. 8 “Majority-minority” district is a term used to describe a district whose population is predominantly African- American or other identified racial minority as documented by the U.S. Census. 11

Black Voting Age Dem Partisan Percentage of Legislator District Population Index Vote

Janine Boyd HD 9 52.68% 83.80% 84.43%

Bill Patmon HD 10 52.35% 87.17% 100%

Stephanie Howse HD 11 62.27% 86.64% 85.72%

John Barnes, Jr. HD 12 59.02% 81.92% 100.00%

Bernadine HD 25 54.70% 82.01% 70.79% Kennedy Kent

Hearcel Craig HD 26 54.63% 77.74% 79.61%

Catherine C. HD 32 51.89% 73.79% 76.88% Ingram

Alicia Reece HD 33 51.65% 72.37% 73.54%

Amelia Sykes HD 34 41.06% 75.09% 77.14%

Fred Strahorn HD 39 52.39% 81.03% 100%

Mike Ashford HD 44 46.76% 81.84% 82.10%

Thomas West HD 49 17.21% 62.54% 56.52%

Glenn W. Holmes HD 63 4.01% 62.56% 59.76%

Ohio Senate

The projected9 winners based on partisan indexing won in all of the Ohio Senate races in 2012 and 2014, and all but one race in 2016.

9 The Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting provided the projections based on a partisan index using the results from the following statewide races: 2008-President; 2010-Governor, Auditor, and Secretary of State. The election results are available from the Ohio Secretary of State at www.sos.state.oh.us. 12

Ohio Senate

Races PROJECTED 2012 RESULTS 2014 RESULTS 2016 RESULTS District % R % D % R % D % R % D % R % D No. 100% 0% 100% 0% (no 1 64.82% 35.18% (Hite) (no cand.) (Hite) cand.) 58.32% 41.68% 66.38% 33.62% 2 52.42% 47.58% (Gardner) (Bretz) (Gardner) (Halliday) 61.13% 38.87% 3 51.18% 48.82% (Bacon) (Johnson) 100% 0% 67.66% 32.34% 4 64.99% 35.01% (Coley) (no cand.) (Coley) (Kinne) 57.03% 42.97% 5 51.40% 48.60% (Beagle) (Gillis) 62.42% 37.58% 68.06% 31.94% 6 61.42% 38.58% (Lehner) (McKiddy) (Lehner) (Griggs) 100% 0% (no 7 67.55% 32.45% (Jones) cand.) 61.46% 38.54% 62.88% 37.12% 8 62.87% 37.13% (Seitz) (Luken) (Terhar) (Lierman) 42.84% 57.16% 9 28.34% 71.66% (Winburn) (Thomas) 61.32% 38.68% 65.14% 34.86% 10 59.95% 40.05% (Widener) (Robertson) (Hackett) (Kirk) 35.6% 64.4% 11 33.26% 66.74% (McCarthy) (Brown) 78.84% 0% 100% 0% 12 68.22% 31.78% (Faber) (no Dem. cand. **) (Huffman) (no cand.) 63.42% 36.58% 13 52.64% 47.36% (Manning) (Madison) 100% 0% 71.92% 28.08% 14 63.54% 36.46% (Uecker) (no cand.) (Uecker) (Carlier) 23.6% 76.4% 15 23.57% 76.43% (Healy) (Tavares) 100% 0% 58.99% 41.01% 16 56.19% 43.81% (Hughes) (no cand.) (Kunze) (Johnson) 100% 0% 100% 0% (no 17 59.13% 40.87% (Peterson) (no cand.) (Peterson) cand.) 54.69% 45.31% 65.27% 34.73% 18 55.59% 44.41% (Eklund) (Mueller) (Eklund) (Runnestrand) 61.05% 38.95% 19 58.49% 41.51% (Jordan) (Patel) 59.48% 40.52% 100% 0% 20 58.62% 41.38% (Balderson) (Scarmack) (Balderson) (no cand.) 13.34% 86.66% 21 28.19% 71.81% (Kafaru) (Williams)

59.37% 40.63% 69.78% 22 60.53% 39.47% (Obhof) (Riley) (Obhof) 30.21% (King) 37.63% 62.37% 23 39.12% 60.88% (Haren) (Skindell) 58.95% 41.05% 58.14% 41.86% 24 54.61% 45.39% (Patton) (Brady) (Dolan) (Hagan) 24.48% 75.52% 25 16.62% 83.38% (Crider) (Yuko) 60.26% 39.74% 100% 0% 26 60.27% 39.73% (Burke) (Addison) (Burke) (no cand.) 67.73% 32.27% 27 56.75% 43.25% (LaRose) (Rusiska) 28.12% 71.88% 38.79% 61.21% 28 38.30% 61.70% (Roush) (Sawyer) (Schulz) (Sykes) 66.58% 33.42% 29 51.05% 48.95% (Oelslager) (Rubin) 47.61% 52.39% 52.90% 47.10% 30 49.13% 50.87% (Thompson) (Gentile) (Hoagland) (Gentile) 65.04% 34.96% 31 59.21% 40.79% (Hottinger) (Carlisle) 32.85% 67.15% 43.61% 56.39% 32 41.95% 58.05% (McArthur) (Cafaro) (Allen) (O'Brien) 0% 100% 33 41.10% 58.90% (no cand.) (Schiavoni)

The chart below shows that while 66.62% of the total votes statewide were cast for majority Republican Party Senate candidates, that party won 14 of the 16 seats or 87.5% of those seats up for election in 2016.

2016 Senate Republican Senate Democrat

# of Votes 1,640,498 821,822

% of Votes 67% 33%

# of Seats 14 2 % of Seats 87.5% 12.5%

2016 Ohio Senate Republican 2016 Ohio Senate Republican vs Democratic Votes vs Democratic Seats Senate Democrats 2

Senate Democrats 33% Senate Republicans 67% Senate Republicans 14

BETTER WAYS OF DRAWING DISTRICTS

Legislative districts do not have to be drawn to reach such disproportionate results. Applying a few simple rules can yield districts that more fairly and accurately reflect voter preferences. In 2009, in conjunction with then-Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and several good government organizations, the League of Women Voters of Ohio held a competition to determine if congressional districts drawn based on data from the 2000 census could meet several “public interest” criteria: • Compactness. Sometimes referred to as the “look” of a district, compactness assures that bizarrely-shaped legislative districts are minimized. • Communities of Interest. Counties, municipalities, and other government boundaries give Ohioans a sense of place and shared interests. This measure seeks to minimize political subdivisions divided between districts. • Competitiveness. Our democracy thrives when the marketplace of ideas is truly competitive, especially on Election Day. This measure seeks to increase the number of legislative districts that could be won by either party, providing Ohioans with a stronger voice in choosing their representatives. • Representational Fairness. A redistricting plan does not unfairly bias one party over another. 15

The maps also needed to meet three basic legal thresholds:

• Population equality. Federal case law requires that districts be as equal in population as possible. • Contiguity. Every part of a district must be reachable from every other part without crossing the district’s borders. • National Voting Rights Act. All plans must provide for at least one majority- minority congressional district, in keeping with federal law and case law. Mathematical measurements were developed for each of the public interest map- drawing criteria so maps could be easily compared. Maps submitted by members of the public proved that it is possible to successfully balance those four criteria and three legal requirements. Importantly, districts were drawn that were both compact and competitive, countering the widely held belief that this could not be accomplished. All maps submitted by the contestants far outscored the maps approved by the Ohio General Assembly during the prior redistricting in 2001.

Based on the 2009 competition, the League, in its role as a member of the Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting, participated in sponsoring a “real time” competition in 2011 to parallel the state’s official redrawing in 2011. Based on the 2010 census data, members of the public drew maps for Ohio General Assembly districts, as well as congressional districts. The maps were judged on the same basic criteria used in 2009. The competition occurred at the same time the General Assembly and Apportionment Board were developing their maps for congressional and General Assembly districts, and maps drawn by the public were presented to those bodies. Based on the criteria used in the competition, the public maps far outscored the maps approved by the General Assembly and the Apportionment Board.

The two competitions prove that it is possible to draw maps that better satisfy “public interest” criteria.

Voters would be better served if districts were drawn to take into account representational fairness, competition, compactness, and preservation of political subdivisions rather than the current majority-party-takes-all system.